Good

[Bill Pierce]

I think this is a pretty important article/video. Any thoughts?

https://luminous-landscape.com/is-good-good-enough/

 

[Hsg]

I think its a little patronizing when social media commentators like these two tell people to stop obsessing about gear and go out for photography.

In order to take photos one needs inspiration, its not easy to just go out and take photos, there has to be a spark.

 

[Spanik]

Don't know about that. If I don't go out, inspiration doesn't come and I take no photographs. Bit of a chicken-egg question: do you go out to take photographs or do you take photograpĥs when you go out? For me going out and taking in the surroundings is a very large part of photography.

But to say that this video is important?

 

[shimokita]

It's not just the topic, the context is one of the interesting bits. Thanks for the link...

I found it interesting that the "sponsor" that appears at the end of the linked article is a printer company... I might not necessarly have position the article/video as 'pretty importiant', but it was interesting within the context of a commercial / business venue.

For anyone searching for a new camera the market can be a bit whelming at the moment, so the link is valid presentation at that level. For the established photographer (what ever that means), "is it good enough?", although somewhat subjective, remains reasonable if somewhat open ended.

I was recently in the market for a camera to complement what I am currently shooting with. In the end it was about how the camera handled and one or two features that I was interested in. For images that I post on public forums the criteria I use is "can I live with that..." [for now]. How the photo is displayed is relevent... I wish it were a simple as "it's all about the photo / print".

 

[GaryLH]

What I got out of the video...was everyone has a different perspective of what is important to them as it relates to what makes the right equipment for them...whether that is because u only look at shot via the digital realm (displays) vs the physical (print).. The main question for the viewer is "what is good enough"...are u after the ultimate iq in a lens and highest mp combination so u can see every little detail in your shot or blow up to bill board size?

For me given I don't print bigger than 13x19 and do mostly 8x11, 16mp is already good enough.. The new 24mp sensors are a plus.. Personally I have no need for bigger outside of gear head syndrome 😛.

As it is, I am fine w/ the 12mp output from my lx100..recently my wife commented on a shot I made w/ it that I blown up to 13x19.. It about the nice color and composition..

Gary

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I stopped at sensor and fast lenses sentence.
Majority takes pictures with mobile phones. Majority is gearless. But not appless 🙂

For more advance picture takers (whose are total minority now) the gear is important.

 

[GaryLH]

Even mobile phones have gonna into the sensors wars in a way. The Panasonic cm1 or the Nokia 41 mp sensor size phones are examples. But even before the world of digital, the masses were happy w/ the Kodak instamatics or 110 or 135 disposables or simple p&s for that matter.

Gary

 

[Timmyjoe]

Thanks for sharing Bill. I agree that so much of the gear is so good today. That said, there's still things I dream of. Can't wait for the day that some camera manufacturer can take everything that my Nikon D4 does, with a 300mm or 400mm lens attached, and put it in a package the size of my Nikon 1 V2. The high ISO, the focusing in low light. Sure would make those sporting events easier on my back and knees.

Best,
-Tim

 

[willie_901]

It's important because the current CMOS data streams recently reached a state of equilibrium. This is because the photon noise A.K.A. shot noise level is now similar or greater than the read noise level. Increasing ISO by post-acqusition digital multiplication rather than post-acqusition electronic amplification will soon be common.

Except for Canon, the data stream technologies are similar and while some systems have 1/3 to even 1 stop more signal-to-noise ratio/dynamic range, the difference have minimum impact on the final results. Canon is handicapped by their unique post-sensor design philosophy, but even then they are actually far enough behind to loose market share.

New very different imaging technologies are on the way. The read-noise level will be reduced significantly. These technologies will be useful to sports photographers or people who work in extremely low ambient-light levels. Because of the unavoidable uncertainty in the signals due to photon noise, even these technologies will not make a huge difference for most photographers.

 

[Lss]

I think this is a pretty important article/video.

Why?

(Extra characters making this message important enough to post.)

 

[Timmyjoe]

Sometimes it's the peripherals that make more of a difference than the camera/sensor with all the different ways clients and editors want images delivered. For sports I have to take an auto to carry all the gear and my "office in a backpack" which allows me to edit images, send them to my editor's FTP, put some up on Twitter, and some on Facebook, all while on the road. But when I'm shooting in the city for a different editor, I'm usually on foot, so then it's the small camera system, and the iPad editing workstation with WiFi hotspot, for emailing images to the editor and posting images on Twitter and Facebook. And in some extreme cases, I use the small system, WiFi the images from the camera to my iPhone, do a quick edit and post to Twitter and email to another editor.

Many times the process, once the shutter button has been pushed, in getting the images to the client, is far more complicated, and takes more of my techy energy, than what camera/sensor to use.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Bill Pierce]

Originally Posted by Bill Pierce "I think this is a pretty important article/video."

Why?

(Extra characters making this message important enough to post.)

We point our cameras at what interests us. That could be family and friends, folk outside our family, the lovely world around us, the not so lovely world around us, you name it. The one thing we have in common is our gear, and, when we get together, we share that common interest. The many photo sites on the web are a testament to that. Sometimes we get a little obsessed with our cameras and forget that what is important is in front of our cameras. A gentle reminder of that is not out of place.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Sometimes it's the peripherals that make more of a difference than the camera/sensor with all the different ways clients and editors want images delivered. For sports I have to take an auto to carry all the gear and my "office in a backpack" which allows me to edit images, send them to my editor's FTP, put some up on Twitter, and some on Facebook, all while on the road. But when I'm shooting in the city for a different editor, I'm usually on foot, so then it's the small camera system, and the iPad editing workstation with WiFi hotspot, for emailing images to the editor and posting images on Twitter and Facebook. And in some extreme cases, I use the small system, WiFi the images from the camera to my iPhone, do a quick edit and post to Twitter and email to another editor.

Many times the process, once the shutter button has been pushed, in getting the images to the client, is far more complicated, and takes more of my techy energy, than what camera/sensor to use.

Best,
-Tim

As somebody who used to be in the same racket and often out of the country YES, YES, YES!!!

 

[gb hill]

Thanks Bill. I think they were spot on in their conversation. I found it interesting in what Keven had to say about the final print using the digital medium. One couldn't tell the difference looking at a print at an exhibition he had using a 6MP $19,000 Phase One & an iphone.

Then there is the digital darkroom Keven described with the big Epson printers & such. Just the price of the printer, inks, paper alone is way more in cost than the average photographer can afford. I know back in the day film darkroom equipment was expensive but then back then we didn't have the internet. We made prints which gets to my point.

Are we loosing the print thru digital photography? Are consumer printers "Good enough" Is printing becoming a niche in digital photography as film is to photography in general? Lot's to ponder through their discussion.